There was big news this last week when The Boy Scout's 'perversion files' were made public by an Oregon court, Thursday October 18, 2012. We have seen over the last few years perversion files from the Catholic Church's priests and now the Boy Scouts. That will be NOTHING compared to the 'perversion files' that are being covered up[5] and added to EVERYDAY by the Supreme Court's self-serving grant of absolute immunity for themselves and their judicial,[6] prosecutorial[7] and enforcement[8]sycophants. The whole concept of sexual perversion alone will pale in comparison to the supreme court's perversions of Justice!!!!!

If we could see how many cases have been disposed summarily without providing access to JUSTICE[9] by the criminally corrupt Black Robed Royalist Judiciary over the years to cover-up and sustain their self-created and self-sustaining absolute immunity for themselves and their judicial,[10] prosecutorial[11] and enforcement[12]sycophants, it would make the Catholic Church's and the Boy Scout's cover up look like child's play in comparison.

The Catholic Church and The Boy Scouts were allowed to cover up their corruption because we mistakenly believed they would do no wrong. We allowed them absolute immunity. Absolute Immunity empowered them to absolute power to cover up the perversion of their purpose. Now is every priest or scoutmaster bad, of course not. But we should have been doing our due diligence all along and ferreting out those that were bad instead of covering up the atrocities for the sake of propriety and the supposed abatement of "vexatious actions"[13] and "continual calumniations."[14]

Need I repeat it "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." There is NO escaping it. John McCain made what sounded like a magnanimous statement a few weeks back at the award of the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal on Wednesday September 19, 2012 to Aung San Suu Kyi, the Myanmar democratic freedom activist who spent 15 years under house arrest. He said she was "his personal hero."[15] "Senator John McCain, who thanked "'The Lady,' for teaching me at my age a thing or two about courage." In closing, McCain quoted Aung San Suu Kyi's famous dictum that "it is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.""[16] And that seems to make Lord Acton's quote a little less potent and little more palatable to a fading power broker. Because he is in the midst of giving up his power, as he sees it peaceably. That does not help the victims of absolute power. There is NO ESCAPING it "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I do not care how you relinquish power forcibly or peaceably.

I had reason to be in criminal court today, for the record I was not on trial. That being said, I was embarrassed by the elaborate, intimidation and humiliation that is supported by our courts of justice today. At the door I was forced to strip my belt and give up my nail clippers and a small facial hair trimmer before going through a metal detector and an after a close x-ray inspection of my bag. That they required a metal detector and a close x-ray inspection shows first that we have completely capitulated to the terrorist's agenda to force us to live in FEAR!!!!![17] But that they were confiscated after a close inspection goes above and BEYOND safety concerns it is a power GRAB by the absolutely immune. The want-to-becaped-crusaders at the security desk, without reason or justification, just unrealistic FEAR mongering, are out to intimidate We the People, their prey.

If those in power were actually doing their jobs, the defense of liberty and justice for all,[18]instead of FEAR MONGERING for additional power, they would be standing up against the "vexatious actions"[19] of unwarranted searches, a metal detector and a close x-ray inspection of my bag, and "continual calumniations"[20] of Arabs, Muslims and other unjustly reviled minorities purported to be the clandestine unknowable and otherwise unpreventable risk. This is all about SOUND JUDGMENT in the defense of liberty in the face of unreasonable fear of an uninformed majority.

This is all purported and sustained by the Black Robed Royalist Judiciary.[21]Our Constitutional Judiciary by design is supposed to be the defenders of liberties not the defilers of the blessings of liberty with "vexatious actions"[22] of unwarranted searches, a metal detector and a close x-ray inspection of my bag, and "continual calumniations"[23] of Arabs, Muslims and other minorities purported to have merely the appearance of the otherwise unknowable and unpreventable risk.

The Black Robed Royalist Judiciary[24] in the courtroom, where justice should be on display and always prevail, had their henchmen the prosecutors[25] and law enforcement[26] forcing un-convicted innocent plaintiff after un-convicted innocent plaintiff quite LITERALLY to bow their heads in deference to the Judge. Why? How is the possible in a country based on the credo that All Men are Created Equal. Where titles of Nobility are constitutionally[27] prohibited by the supreme law of the land:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."[28]

Our judiciary, prosecutors and enforcement were to be "the citadel of the public justice and the public security" not the source of"vexatious actions"[29] and "continual calumniations"[30] to enforce their self-serving ennoblement. [31]

How can the malice, corruption, dishonesty and incompetence[36] condoned and supported by Supreme Court precedent be constitutional in a SANE government of the people, by the people and for the people?

This is a massivemalicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[37] self-serving conspiracy against rights!!!

Historically, the claim of precedent and / or consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Absolute Immunity even in the supreme Court has NEVER been established without, in most cases, multiple dissenting opinions.

To assume that the founding fathers, who had enacted the Constitution of the United States of America as the supreme Law of the Land, intended sub silentio to exempt[38] ANYONE, all evidence to the contrary, especially those tasked with judicial,[39]prosecutorial[40]and enforcement[41]power from its paramount binding authority is an incredible fantastic or delusional scenario.[42]

There are no royal absolutely immune ruling persons/class in this country i.e., no titles of nobility.[45]We the People incorporated ourselves, in 1788, into a government of the people, by the people and for the people to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity with a lawfully un-abridge-able right of the people to justifiably petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[46]

How can the Supreme Court, a delegated authority, acting under a sworn to constitutional commission award themselves and others "absolute immunity"[47] from said constitutional commission to "do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid"[48] i.e.,the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America?"[49] by DENYING the constitutional assurance of governmental accountability with 1st and 7th Amendment Justice, law and equity?[50]

We the People have fallen under the despotic[51] spell of the concentrated power[52] in the Supreme Court that has created ABSOLUTE POWER[53] from ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[54] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor,[55]the "knowingly false testimony bypolice officers"[56] and "all (malicious, corrupt, dishonest and incompetent[57]) persons -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process"[58] acting under color of law to wit, ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION.[59]

I sometimes feel like the waif in "The Emperor's New Cloths." AM I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SEE IT??

ANY assertion of personal ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, without proof of divinity, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity,[60] in a government of free and equal persons on THIS PLANET!!!!!

ANY assertion of governmental ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, acknowledging un-avoidable human fallibility, is a fraud, by any standard of Justice, law and equity, in a government of the people, by the people and for the people on THIS PLANET!!!!!

The ministerial[61] grant of "Absolute Immunity,"[62] by and for ministers, is a massive, at the highest levels, ministerial, unconstitutional and "unlawful Conspiracy"[63] "before out of Court"[64] to obfuscate "false and malicious Persecutions."[65]

"Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress." "The courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity." I say it NOW, Monday, October 22, 2012!!! Justice William O. Douglas said it in 1961 and 1967.[66] Mr. Lowe of Kansas and Mr. Rainey of South Carolina respectively said it originally in 1871[67].

They did it in the past with Jim Crow and they ARE doing it in the present with Jane Crow[75] and abandonment of Civil Rights as regards the alleged war on terror[76].

I say the alleged war on terror. The alleged war on terror has become an all-consuming self-sustaining maximum effort. If ever there was a need for cool heads and sound judgment it is with the terrorist issue. Instead We the People are constantly being subjected the "vexatious actions"[77] of unwarranted intrusive searches and the "continual calumniations"[78] of our minority American Citizens.

The Right of Petition is the right to substantive justice between the government and the people. We do not have any individually enforceable rights in this country, "Everybody, BUT the innocent victim, has "ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY"[79]" for the "deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America"[80] e.g., "To Kill a Mocking Bird, The Denial of Due Process,"[81] "The Exclusionary Rule," "Grounds for Impeachment."

Most of the 99% of Americans have not had the pleasure and are silently intimidated by the prospect of being dragged through our corrupt COURTS kicking and screaming!!!!!! I have been kicking and screaming for nearly 9 years.[82] I have suffered through 411 days of illegal incarceration, 5 years of homelessness and two psychological examinations. I ask you to review Jeep v Obama 8th Circuit Court of Appeals case #11-2425, Jeep v United States of America 10-1947," Jeep v Bennett 08-1823, "Jeep v Jones 07-2614, and the most humble Petition for a Wirt of Certiorari to the Supreme Court 07-11115 and 11-8211."

We hold a "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued."[83] We can bail out the automakers to the tune of $75-$120+ billion.[84] We can spend $1.3 trillions and rising on an attempt at nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.[85] We can make-work to stimulate the economy with $787 billion.[86] We can bail out the Banks to the tune of $2.5 Trillion.[87] But we cannot AFFORD to even consider the possibility of negligence, malice and corruption of "our chief justice (judges), our officials (prosecutors), or any of our servants (law enforcement)"[88] and compensate the victims?

[2] "And if you think that is a national problem, consider that the United States is by far the World's greatest power; it is not accountable to its own people for its abuses of power, and that abuse of power flows freely into international circles. Given that reality, there is not a nation in the world that should not fear us in the same way that a reasonable person fears a child with a gun." 31 U. WEST L.A. L. REV. ( Summer 2000 ) JOHN E. WOLFGRAM e.g., George Bush's false representations of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi - Underlining and parenthetical text added for emphasis.

[6] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[7] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

[9] The obvious raison d'être for our Judiciary is as they themselves have said "that justice shall be done" under color of law.

[10] ""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit (How does the denial of rights benefit We the People?) and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges(Why do judges think they should have the INDEPENDENCE to deny our rights at will, when it was our intent to have them bound by those very same rights as the Supreme Law of the Land? ) and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

-- and the leave was refused" Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 349 (1871)

[11] Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty." Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

[17] On this point I would agree with, in-part,Aung San Suu Kyi's famous dictum that "fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it."

[18] Congressional sessions open with the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." All government officials swear "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…"

[27] There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity,"Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" andArticle 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility."

[28] "Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of the supreme law of the land.

[31]There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity,"Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" andArticle 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of thesupreme law of the land:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity).This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."

You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.

Anyone that wants to assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.

There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[32] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for 4.75 YEARS!

The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.

[34] Article. VI, 2nd Paragraph Constitution for the United States of America, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby"

[36]Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do"12/08/2010 USAToday byBrad Heath & Kevin McCoy("Federal prosecutors series"). The"OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."

[37]Incompetence is the most insidiuos and it is covered up by the gratuitous grants of dishoesty, malice andcorruption. As regards state Prosecutors, "States can discipline federal prosecutors, rarely do"12/08/2010 USAToday byBrad Heath & Kevin McCoy("Federal prosecutors series"). The"OPR is a black hole. Stuff goes in, nothing comes out," said Jim Lavine, the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "The public, the defense attorneys and the judiciary have lost respect for the government's ability to police themselves."

[38] "To assume that Congress, which had enacted a criminal sanction directed against state judicial officials, [Footnote 2/26] intended sub silentio to exempt those same officials from the civil counterpart approaches the incredible. [Footnote 2/27]" Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 363 (1983) I would assert it a fantastic or delusional scenario!!!!!

[39]""It is a principle of our law that no action will lie against a judge of one of the superior courts for a judicial act, though it be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly; therefore the proposed allegation would not make the declaration good. The public are deeply interested in this rule, which indeed exists for their benefit and was established in order to secure the independence of the judges and prevent them being harassed by vexatious actions"

[40]Supreme Court precedent empowers the "malicious or dishonest"prosecutor by saying, "To be sure, this immunity does leave the genuinely wronged defendant without civil redress against a prosecutor whose malicious or dishonest action deprives him of liberty."Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 428 (1976)

[45]There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity,"Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" andArticle 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of thesupreme law of the land:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity).This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."

You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.

Anyone that wants to assertion "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of theabsolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.

There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did NatKing Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[46] Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[50] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into poverty, homelessness for FOUR YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able justifiable redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment secures the right to settle all suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.

[51] Montesquieu in his "De l'Espirit des Lois" (1748) (The Spirit of the Law) defines three main kinds of political systems: republican, monarchical, and despotic. Driving each classification of political system, according to Montesquieu, must be what he calls a "principle". This principle acts as a spring or motor to motivate behavior on the part of the citizens in ways that will tend to support that regime and make it function smoothly. For democratic republics (and to a somewhat lesser extent for aristocratic republics), this spring is the love of virtue -- the willingness to put the interests of the community ahead of private interests. For monarchies, the spring is the love of honor -- the desire to attain greater rank and privilege. Finally, for despotisms, the spring is the fear of the ruler. We the People have currently despotic system in that we have NO enforceable rights in America TODAY!!!!!!!!!!

[52] "All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: Beacon Press, p. 364

[53] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.

[59] "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it." Lord Acton in a letter he wrote to scholar and ecclesiastic Mandell Creighton, dated April 1887.

[60] Justice without regard to equity impoverishes the victim at the expense of the evil they have suffered. I have been forced into homelessness for FIVE YEARS! The 1st Amendment secures the constitutional right to a lawfully un-abridge-able redress of grievance from the government: "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The 7th Amendment's secures the right to settle all disputes/suits: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" assures justice as regards equity.

[61] Ministerially created rules are SECONDARY, in a Democratic Constitutional form of government, to the will of the people as specifically expressed in the Constitution and the Statute law. For anyone to ministerially grant immunity from the Constitution and Statute law is to act in direct conflict with the tenor of the commission under which the MINISTERIAL authority was granted.

[63]Lord CokeFloyd and Barker (1607) "Judge or Justice of Peace: and the Law will not admit any proof against this vehement and violent presumption of Law, that a Justice sworn to do Justice will do injustice; but if he hath conspired before out of Court, this is extrajudicial; but due examination of Causes out of Court, and inquiring by Testimonies, Et similia, is not any Conspiracy, for this he ought to do; but subornation of Witnesses, and false and malicious Persecutions, out of Court, to such whom he knowes will be Indictors, to find any guilty, &c. amounts to an unlawful Conspiracy."

[68] "And the inference is greatly fortified by the consideration of the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments… upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations." Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 stated that impeachment was to be used as an integral check for "Judicial Authority"

[70] The redress of a justifiable grievance REQUIRES a remedy in BOTH law and equity

[71] Article III Section 1 the Constitution for the United States of America "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" Yes it is spelled wrong in the Constitution

[72] 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[73] Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

[74]There are TWO constitutional prohibitions for the grant of Nobility i.e., "Absolute Immunity,"Article 1, Section 9, 7th paragraph "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States" andArticle 1, Section 10, 1st paragraph "No State shall… grant any Title of Nobility." Additionally I cite Alexander Hamilton, FEDERALIST No. 84, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered" From McLEAN's Edition, New York. Wednesday, May 28, 1788 as further timely clarification of thesupreme law of the land:

"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility(i.e., absolute immunity).This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people."

You some how want to argue that "the grant of Nobility" was about something other than the ROYAL Status of IMMUNITY. You want to argue that hereditary property rights were linked to a Colonial interpretation of Nobility? That would undermine Free-Enterprise.

Anyone that wants to assert "the prohibition of titles of nobility' was meant to be anything more than a prohibition of the absolute immunity of the nobility had been allowed, need only read the Petition of Right 1628 and note the consistent aversion to the asserted immunity of the nobility.

There is not now and there was not then any titular value other than Royal status as immunity - being above the law? Did Nat "King" Cole violate the constitution? No one is that petty. Nobility conferred ONE-THING of interest now and then, IMMUNITY from the RULE OF LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[75]The "Jane Crow" Era, the courts preference for a mother's/woman's rights over a father's/man's rights in Domestic Relation Law

The "Jane Crow" Era, "It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an exparte order of protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house."

A fait accompli, "A man against whom a frivolous exparte order of protection has been brought starts to lose any power in his divorce proceeding. They do startdecompensating, and they do start to have emotional issues, and they do startdeveloping post-traumatic stress disorders. They keep replaying in their minds the tape of what happened to them in court. It starts this whole vicious downward cycle. They've been embarrassed and shamed in front of their family and friends, unjustly, and they totally lose any sense of self-control and self-respect. They may indeed become verbally abusive. It's difficult for the court to see where that person was prior to the restraining order." "The Booming Domestic Violence Industry" - Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire,Hitting below the beltMonday, 10/25/99 12:00 ET, By Cathy Young, Salon -Divorced men claim discrimination by state courts, 09/07/99, By Erica Noonan, Associated Press,Dads to Sue for Discrimination,08/24/99, By Amy Sinatra,ABCNEWS.com,The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships, by Jake Morphonios, 02/13/08

[76] I say the alleged war on terror. The FEAR MONGERING in this, alleged war on terror, stirs up more fear, requiring more

[81] Mr. Hoar of Massachusetts stated: "Now, it is an effectual denial by a State of the equal protection of the laws when any class of officers charged under the laws with their administration permanently, and as a rule, refuse to extend that protection. If every sheriff in South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) refuses to serve a writ for a colored man, and those sheriffs are kept in office year after year by the people of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), and no verdict against them for their failure of duty can be obtained before a South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) jury, the State of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri), through the class of officers who are its representatives to afford the equal protection of the laws to that class of citizens, has denied that protection. If the jurors of South Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) constantly and as a rule refuse to do justice between man and man where the rights of a particular class of its citizens are concerned, and that State affords by its legislation no remedy, that is as much a denial to that class of citizens of the equal protection of the laws as if the State itself put on its statute book a statute enacting that no verdict should be rendered in the courts of that State in favor of this class of citizens. " Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 334.( Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 177) Senator Pratt of Indiana spoke of the discrimination against Union sympathizers and Negroes in the actual enforcement of the laws: "Plausibly and sophistically, it is said the laws of North Carolina (or now the State of Missouri) do not discriminate against them; that the provisions in favor of rights and liberties are general; that the courts are open to all; that juries, grand and petit, are commanded to hear and redress without distinction as to color, race, or political sentiment." "But it is a fact, asserted in the report, that of the hundreds of outrages committed upon loyal people through the agency of this Ku Klux organization, not one has been punished. This defect in the administration of the laws does not extend to other cases. Vigorously enough are the laws enforced against Union people. They only fail in efficiency when a man of known Union sentiments, white or black, invokes their aid. Then Justice closes the door of her temples." Cong.Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess. p. 505. (Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961), Page 365 U. S. 178) non italic parenthetical text added fro clarity.

[83] "4-Year-Old Can Be Sued, Judge Rules in Bike Case" "Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a New York State Supreme Court Justice has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence." Justice Paul Wooten of the New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, New York Times, New York edition, published: October 28, 2010, A version of this article appeared in print on October 29, 2010, on page A24 By Alan Feuer

GoFundMe

Contact Form

About Me

“Where
an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is
safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where
there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite
cause.

Government
is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the
various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses.
This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which
impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” James
Madison “Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792”

The
strength of human civilization is its ability to OVERCOME our purely animal
instincts… CO-OPERATE for the GREATER GOOD!!Human civilization is the only species on this planet capable of
overcoming the animal instinct of Herbert Spencer’s discredited “survival of
the fittest.”This ability is what makes
us human, what makes us dominant and what separates us from the animals.

The
United States of America was FOUNDED on the "Love of Virtue."The Founding Fathers based their
constitutional assertions on the love of virtue as defined by Montesquieu’s
republican government’s essential ingredient, the willingness to put the
interests of the community ahead of private interests.We need to remember the, at the time,
“REVOLUTIONARY” “Love of Virtue” that this country was founded upon….